Hi!
I'm attempting to package OpenBoard[1]. Upstream bundles the following
fonts:
- urw (unused)
- Andika Basic (Andika upstream recommends Andika New Basic instead)
- BSTGreek (unknown source, possibly [2], font metadata says Public
Domain)
- Écolier court
- EcritureA+B (non-free, under CC-BY-ND-3.0)
- GE Typo Libre (unknown license, possibly CC0, like its successor NE FR
Typo Libre)
Andika and Écolier are free and included in Fedora, so I can just
unbundle them, but the others are a problem. Can anyone suggest free
alternatives?
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Dominik
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2401199
[2] https://www.biblestudytools.com/resources/bst-greek-hebrew-fonts.html
--
Fedora https://fedoraproject.org
Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that
makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic.
-- from "The Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan
(I opened a pagure ticket about this too:
https://pagure.io/fonts-rpm-macros/issue/26)
Since the git repo for fonts-rpm-macros has been out of sync for 5+ years
now due to the Fedora package reverting back to 2.0 at that time. We have
been thinking it would be better to fork a new branch and probably also
move to a new repo at the same time given that Fedora use of pagure.io is
being replaced with Fedora Forge <https://forge.fedoraproject.org/> soon.
My thought is roughly that we should fork off the current main branch from
the 2.0.5 tag (corresponding to the current fedora tarball) and then cherry
pick recent commits and/or apply patches from the Fedora package to create
a new repo in sync with what is currently being shipped.
Given that it is an official Fedora project it seems most natural to either
host it in the new Fedora Forge (Forgejo), or gitlab.com/fedora or possibly
github. One consideration brought up was CI, though currently there isn't
any but I don't know how much we will lean on that.
Any thoughts or particular suggestions?
Jens
Am reviewing amir-samaano-fonts [1], which includes a variable font. When both variable and fall back regular fonts are packaged, some applications such as Inkscape may have difficulty indicating which fonts are available. If just a variable font is packaged, Inkscape and other applications such as Abiword, Gimp and Krita, seem to be ok and give reasonable options for thin, medium and bold weights and for italic and underline. Application support is evolving. Should packagers choose to either package the variable fonts or the classical fonts, or if both are offered, make them conflicting separate packages?
The current release does not have good support for color fonts, for example try Kalnia Glaze Fonts[2], but support for these is still growing in applications outside of web fonts.
1) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2330850
2) https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/fmedrano-kalnia-glaze-fonts/
I have recently wrote a guest blog post regarding using Fontra open source
font editor in Linux [1].
There I have wished Fontra be made available in repository of all major
Linux distributions including Fedora. Any guidance from Fedora fonts
community on how it can be packed for Fedora is highly appreciated
Dr Anirban Mitra
1. https://blog.fontra.xyz/blog/linux-support/
I have created a color variable font [1] using fully open source tools. But
want to make it available in copr.
However as per fedora rules for packaging, font must be compiled from
source. However my open source toolchain consists of creating a python
virtual environment, installing the open source tools like opentypesvg and
nanoemoji in that environment and then convert Fontforge sources into a
color variable font. However such a workflow is not possible in Fedora.
However fonttools ttx files are generated in the process which is XML
representation of the binary font file. My question is can ttx format be
considered source format? If acceptable then fonts can be generated in a
single step using fonttools which is available in Fedora repository.
Dr Anirban Mitra
1. https://github.com/mitradranirban/rangeen
Hi,
Am reviewing:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257137
the font is under OFL-1.1-RN license, but the conf file is under MIT.
Should the spec file contain
%global fontlicense OFL-1.1-RFN
%license MIT
%global fontlicenses fonts/LICENSE.txt
if not, where should the conf file license declaration be made?
Benson